Facebook to take a stand against rape jokes, gender hate speech

Under pressure from womens' rights groups, Facebook pledges to make changes.

Facebook has announced plans to renew its effort toward monitoring, and where appropriate, removing gender-related hate speech from its users, per a post on the company’s Facebook Safety page Tuesday. In its most recent battle, Facebook appears to be trying to differentiate what is “cruel and insensitive” and what is “distasteful humor” in order to answer complaints from groups including Women, Action, and the Media.

WAM wrote an open letter to Facebook on May 21 that asserted the company seems to apply its hate speech mandates unevenly when that hate speech is gender-based. The group cites several Facebook fan pages, including “Fly Kicking Sluts in the Uterus” and “Raping your Girlfriend,” which have now been removed but were presumably present at the time of WAM’s writing.

WAM claims that pages like these and others that constitute hate speech toward women are allowed to exist while similar hate speech pages based on religion, race, and sexual orientation are quickly moderated. WAM cites hateful images or content that get a media spotlight as the exception:

You have also acted inconsistently with regards to your policy on banning images, in many cases refusing to remove offensive rape and domestic violence pictures when reported by members of the public, but deleting them as soon as journalists mention them in articles, which sends the strong message that you are more concerned with acting on a case-by-case basis to protect your reputation than effecting systemic change and taking a clear public stance against the dangerous tolerance of rape and domestic violence.

Facebook explicitly mentions WAM in its response and acknowledges that its rules on hate speech may be unevenly applied when the content is gender-based. “In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate,” Facebook wrote.

“We work hard to remove hate speech quickly, however there are instances of offensive content, including distasteful humor, that are not hate speech according to our definition,” Facebook says. “In these cases, we work to apply fair, thoughtful, and scalable policies.”

Facebook most clearly applies discipline, it says, when the hate speech is oriented towards action: for instance, a page used to plan hate crimes.

But the company noted this standard is not evenly applied, and a lot of non-gender-based discriminatory content gets removed even if it’s not specifically organizing action and is just non-specific, knuckle-dragging hatred. The post states that recently, gender-related hate speech content is getting flagged but not removed in a timely fashion. Other times, “content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria.”

Going forward, Facebook states that it will review and update guidelines that its user operations team uses to identify hate speech. The company will also tweak their training to reflect new standards for what constitutes hate speech. Facebook noted that it is testing a feature that requires a user who says a “hate speech” page is actually merely “cruel and insensitive humor” to associate it with their “authentic identity” in order for it to remain on Facebook.

“These are complicated challenges and raise complex issues,” Facebook said of the problems its woman-hating users have raised. The company will work with WAM and Everyday Sexism to “identify resources or highlight areas of particular concern for inclusion in the training” of employees in charge of targeting and removing the offending content.

Promoted Comments

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

The constitution only applies to the government - Private companies have few or no restrictions.

So, everbody's right when they say FB isn't bound by the First Amendment as a company. For the most part, anyway, as Leucifer indicates. It's a private company: they can tell you what passes for "offensive."

I'd suggest, however, that we ought not be concerned about the application of the First Amendment, but rather the principle behind it. The First Amendment was designed to protect precisely what these groups dislike: unpopular, "hateful" ideas, since even these should have a way of being proclaimed in the public forum.

This isn't about what Facebook is bound to: it's about what they value.

They value money. And companies won't do business with them if they allow racism, sexism, and other hate speech to flourish.

Dove has every right to conduct their own free speech and refuse to do business with Facebook because of sexist speech. And Facebook will be pressured by economics.

This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech only has to do with government censorship. A private entity may restrict speech to its liking. A private entity may rescind advertising over unwanted speech. I can LEAVE a business because I do not support their allowance of racist speech. And to get my business back, they have to reverse their decision. That is the freedom we value.

239 Reader Comments

Good for Facebook. I believe that no subject should be out of the realm of comedy, but you need a comedian who knows their audience and timing. These are just offensive images of violence and hate going "but we're loling! stop being so sensitive frowny face :'("

EDIT: Prediction passed! But I totally wasn't expecting the incredibly stupid debate about whether or not Facebook blocking these things is free speech. Wow.

What does this have to do with gender?I see the problem of the mentioned examples in promoting violence and I don't care if it is against women, men, or anyone refusing to associate with the aforementioned groups.

Has facebook really been worse in removing such content when the groups where named "kick the sucker in his nuts"?

Facebook noted that it is testing a feature that requires a user who says a “hate speech” page is actually merely “cruel and insensitive humor” to associate it with their “authentic identity” in order for it to remain on Facebook.

I assume this account association and the real identity of the user will remain a private matter between Facebook and the user, right?

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

Because it is THEIR servers, it is THEIR site and you agree to THEIR terms. The only reason you are allowed to have a page there is because they are allowing you to do so and you have to agree to THEIR rules. If you don't like it you can pack your bags and go elsewhere.

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

The constitution only applies to the government - Private companies have few or no restrictions.

I salute their efforts against trolls and people who are simply a POS, but this is going to be a shit storm for Facebook. The First Amendment people will be all over this so fast it will make the head spin.

First Amendment only applies to what the government can do, Facebook is a private company and can do as they please.

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

The Facebook website is not government property, it is private property owned by Facebook. You don't have free speech on Facebook's website, you only have free speech on your own website.

I salute their efforts against trolls and people who are simply a POS, but this is going to be a shit storm for Facebook. The First Amendment people will be all over this so fast it will make the head spin.

First Amendment only applies to what the government can do, Facebook is a private company and can do as they please.

I don't disagree with you and I never implied I did think otherwise. Facebook is still going to be attacked for it though, even if it makes no sense at all to do so. Because people are crazy.

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

Because it is THEIR servers, it is THEIR site and you agree to THEIR terms. The only reason you are allowed to have a page there is because they are allowing you to do so and you have to agree to THEIR rules. If you don't like it you can pack your bags and go elsewhere.

Also, it's CENSOR, not censure. Jesus I hate dumb people.

Lick my nuts; I have disgraphia, I can barely communicate in written form with out a spellcheck scrubbing for me. Sorry I clicked the wrong option, no need to start a conversation with god about it.

The dumb part doesn't just apply to using the wrong word, it also applies to the fact that you have no clue how the First Amendment works and that freedom of speech does not apply to private entities. Also, it's not your page, it's their page that they just so happen to let you post on.

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

The Facebook website is not government property, it is private property owned by Facebook. You don't have free speech on Facebook's website, you only have free speech on your own website.

And even on your "own" website it's limited by the content your host/service provider will allow (unless you host your own page on your own server, that is).

I salute their efforts against trolls and people who are simply a POS, but this is going to be a shit storm for Facebook. The First Amendment people will be all over this so fast it will make the head spin.

First Amendment only applies to what the government can do, Facebook is a private company and can do as they please.

I don't disagree with you and I never implied I did think otherwise. Facebook is still going to be attacked for it though, even if it makes no sense at all to do so. Because people are crazy.

Just because Facebook has all rights to censor how they see fit does not mean there's not a moral issue. Law actually relies on people solving such moral issues between themselves.People might be crazy in general, but there's nothing wrong here. If enough people bitch, facebook's likely to care. Practically, though, I guess only enough will bitch for facebook to pretend to care.

Not entirely true. So, a private company can enforce its will upon an employee who chooses to go forth and speak their mind against something? Hardly. They can't technically silence them. However, the company can distance itself or evoke at-will employement in many cases. In many cases, it depends on the contract.

2) "The First Amendent only affects the government".

Again, not entirely true. Otherwise, the whole issue over Wiki-Leaks and PFC Bradley is a done deal, right? They can't prohibit him from speaking, correct? Again...... there's the issue of the contract which he signed when he enlisted where he pretty much signed away that right.

3) "The constitution only applies to the government - Private companies have few or no restrictions"

Really? Then we're free to perform search and seizure on companies as we like, right? No Fourth Amendment if the statement is true.

There's a lot of flawed perceptions around the matter. In the end, Facebook has customers. If those customers find something offensive, Facebook needs to either do something or risk losing them. These pages that are posting this crap agreed to the terms of use which means, effectively, they "signed a contract" between themselves and Facebook.

The question is, who does Facebook "value" more? Those pages? Or the people who find the subject matter offensive? First Amendment promises you freedom of speech. It doesn't not promise you freedom from consequences of that speech from other citizens. Or, as the old saying goes:

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Not that I support such things, but where the fuck does Facebook even get the legal right to regulate what people say?

Even if your page is set to be public, isn't it still (A) freedom of speech & (B) technically a private conversation since YOUR page isn't really public as people need to either intentionally go there or have already added you as a personal contact.

*shrug*

not that it maters, Facebook is the devil; I've never had a page there, nor do I intend to.

I'm just kind of baffled as to where their power to censure comes from.

Because it is THEIR servers, it is THEIR site and you agree to THEIR terms. The only reason you are allowed to have a page there is because they are allowing you to do so and you have to agree to THEIR rules. If you don't like it you can pack your bags and go elsewhere.

Also, it's CENSOR, not censure. Jesus I hate dumb people.

Lick my nuts; I have disgraphia, I can barely communicate in written form with out a spellcheck scrubbing for me. Sorry I clicked the wrong option, no need to start a conversation with god about it.

Keep it "clean" here. Either edit it for clarity (with a note stating such) or make a statement clarifying the comment. Skip the "personal attack" type comments please. It doesn't do anything except reveal your (lack) of character.

Lick my nuts; I have disgraphia, I can barely communicate in written form with out a spellcheck scrubbing for me. Sorry I clicked the wrong option, no need to start a conversation with god about it.

Keep it "clean" here. Either edit it for clarity (with a note stating such) or make a statement clarifying the comment. Skip the "personal attack" type comments please. It doesn't do anything except reveal your (lack) of character.

So, everbody's right when they say FB isn't bound by the First Amendment as a company. For the most part, anyway, as Leucifer indicates. It's a private company: they can tell you what passes for "offensive."

I'd suggest, however, that we ought not be concerned about the application of the First Amendment, but rather the principle behind it. The First Amendment was designed to protect precisely what these groups dislike: unpopular, "hateful" ideas, since even these should have a way of being proclaimed in the public forum.

This isn't about what Facebook is bound to: it's about what they value.

However, the solution to hate speech is more speech. Opening rather than closing the dialog. You will rarely change someone's opinion but it allows others to see the arguments and make a clear choice which side is more reasonable.

I think FB likely should take action against a vocal and tiny minority that is uninterested in discussion and amount to trolls. But there is no clear line.

Being pro-women makes you a feminist.

Being anti-women makes you a misogynist.

Being pro-religion means you practice faith.

Being anti-religion means you disregard faith for science.

Being pro-black can make you the head of the NAACP.

Being anti-black makes you racist.

You can see this turmoil most clearly with religion where societies consensus has shifted and become less concrete. It was once taboo and punishable by death to speak out against religion, now it is seen by many as a valid discussion.

Keep it "clean" here. Either edit it for clarity (with a note stating such) or make a statement clarifying the comment. Skip the "personal attack" type comments please. It doesn't do anything except reveal your (lack) of character.

Gee, how about people that get offended not be FRIENDS with those who offend them? If you browse through friends of friends, guess what, you are going to run into people you don't like.

That's what I was thinking, it will be somewhat self-moderated by people's friends already, insofar as Jeremy's status about women making sandwiches will make Stacey respond negatively to it. If you're offended by what a friend says, there's no need for the site to step in, deal with it yourself; if you know them in any way then you'll probably have to eventually anyway. They won't stop being sexist or racist if their posts are deleted.

Facebook knows they are walking a fine line here.. If they are seen to censor, then people will leave, if they don't then companies will leave.

People should have left ages ago. FB has pissed off so many and yet more keep coming in. They're addicted. FB has nothing to worry about.

Well, that and FB is where everyone already is. I still have my Google+ account ready and waiting to be used but no one else uses it. Its a never ending cycle- better services never catch on because no one wants to join them, and no one wants to join them because there is no one using the service.

For instance, I really dont like paying for XBL. But all my friends have Xbox and only a handful have a PS3. So if I want to play online with my friends I need to shell out for the premium service. Regardless of which service is actually better, Im stuck with only one choice if I want to keep gaming with my friends.

Keep it "clean" here. Either edit it for clarity (with a note stating such) or make a statement clarifying the comment. Skip the "personal attack" type comments please. It doesn't do anything except reveal your (lack) of character.

[Gozer] ARE YOU A MOD?[/Gozer]

Nah. lol The Gozer reference did get a genuine chuckle out of me btw.

Just pleading for some civility. I like Ars. Generally, most people here seem to put up thoughtful comments.

So, everbody's right when they say FB isn't bound by the First Amendment as a company. For the most part, anyway, as Leucifer indicates. It's a private company: they can tell you what passes for "offensive."

I'd suggest, however, that we ought not be concerned about the application of the First Amendment, but rather the principle behind it. The First Amendment was designed to protect precisely what these groups dislike: unpopular, "hateful" ideas, since even these should have a way of being proclaimed in the public forum.

This isn't about what Facebook is bound to: it's about what they value.

They value money. And companies won't do business with them if they allow racism, sexism, and other hate speech to flourish.

Dove has every right to conduct their own free speech and refuse to do business with Facebook because of sexist speech. And Facebook will be pressured by economics.

This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech only has to do with government censorship. A private entity may restrict speech to its liking. A private entity may rescind advertising over unwanted speech. I can LEAVE a business because I do not support their allowance of racist speech. And to get my business back, they have to reverse their decision. That is the freedom we value.